By: Ashley S. Jenkins, Kristina M. Launey, John W. Egan

Seyfarth synopsis: The DOJ filed a Statement of Interest opposing the settlement of a website accessibility class action in California federal court, arguing it does not ensure increased access and disproportionately compensates plaintiffs’ attorneys over the class members with vision disabilities.  The DOJ also asserted that Class Counsel’s settlement website is not accessible to the blind.

As we predicted, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has been less active in enforcing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”) with regard to public accommodations websites during this administration.  Thus, imagine our surprise when DOJ announced on February 2, 2026, that it had filed a Statement of Interest (SOL) opposing a proposed settlement of a federal class action lawsuit concerning the accessibility of a retailer’s website.  

What is the Lawsuit About?

The lawsuit, Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc., USDC ND Cal. Case No. 4:20-cv-01434, alleged that Fashion Nova operates an online retail website that is not accessible to blind individuals, in violation of Title III and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”).  The plaintiff sought injunctive relief requiring modifications to Fashion Nova’s website on behalf of a nationwide class, and state statutory damages on behalf of a California subclass consisting of all legally blind individuals who attempted to access Fashion Nova’s website using screen reading software during the applicable limitations period through the final judgment in the action.   

In 2022, the district court for the Northern District of CA certified a nationwide class, and a California subclass. 

Proposed Settlement Terms

After the court certified the classes, the parties reached agreement on a proposed class action settlement consisting of the following key terms:

• Injunctive Relief:  Fashion Nova agreed to modify its website “as needed” to achieve substantial conformance with WCAG [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines] 2.1.  It also promised to adopt and implement a website accessibility policy that comports with the remedial measures within 180 days after the agreement becomes effective.
• Monetary Relief:  Fashion Nova agreed to pay approximately $2.43 million to California class members who submit valid claims, with a limitation of $4,000 per household for each member of the class that does not opt-out.  Any amount remaining would be paid to a specified blind advocacy organization or another organization agreed by the parties and approved by the Court.
• Attorneys’ Fees: Fashion Nova agreed to pay $2.52 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs’ counsel.
• Optional Measures:  Under the proposed agreement, Class Counsel may, but is not required to, perform an accessibility audit of Defendant’s website at its own cost and expense.    

DOJ’s Position

The DOJ argues in its SOL that the Court should reject the proposed settlement because the injunctive relief would not meaningfully increase accessibility, and the monetary payments disproportionately favors the attorneys over the members of the class.

DOJ specifically cited to the following deficiencies in the proposed agreement:

• The absence of concrete steps to ensure that the website will become fully accessible for consumers; 
• The absence of a mechanism for monitoring or enforcement because Class Counsel is not required to do any monitoring; and
• Disproportionately high attorneys’ fees for Class Counsel, considering the limited value of the agreement to class members.

DOJ also stated “the United States does not oppose relief that would actually make a website available to individuals who are blind or have low vision; rather, we oppose using a civil claim principally to enrich class counsel on the backs of persons with disabilities instead of vindicating the rights of persons with disabilities.”  (emphasis added)

The DOJ also noted incredulously that the website of the settlement administrator that blind individuals must use to submit claims is not accessible to screen reader users. The agency even engaged a digital accessibility consultant who inspected the administrator website and identified various accessibility barriers.

DOJ also called out the volume of similar lawsuits filed by plaintiff and Class Counsel alleging inaccessible websites.  It noted and identified the 20 cases that the plaintiff had filed in 2020 and 2021 “alleging the same four accessibility barriers.”  It stated that Class Counsel had “filed the same exact lawsuit, on behalf of repeat plaintiffs” between 2019 and 2023 in over 500 cases, “with the vast majority ending in a non-disclosed individual settlement.”

And in a notable footnote, the DOJ stated that “[t]he United States does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard for the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Title III of the ADA.  We merely apply the standard that plaintiff has elected in the proposed settlement to the claims administration website for that same settlement.”  This position seems inconsistent with DOJ’s many settlement agreements which adopt WCAG 2.0 AA or 2.1 AA as the accessibility standard.

The DOJ urged the Court to reject the settlement as not meeting the requirements of FRCP 23 that it be fair, reasonable, and adequate to remedy the alleged disability-based discrimination against class members.

Takeaways and Next Steps

The Alcazar proposed class settlement is noteworthy because most website accessibility lawsuits resolve early and confidentially on an individual basis.  But even more interesting is DOJ’s position about the settlement and its barely concealed hostility towards plaintiffs’ attorneys representing serial plaintiffs.  The SOL sends a clear message that DOJ will scrutinize ADA Title III proposed class action settlements in ways that the plaintiffs’ bar may not appreciate.  DOJ’s scrutiny may result in more cases resolving privately on a confidential non-class basis.   

On February 12, 2026, the Court heard the parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.  We await its decision.

Edited by: Minh N. Vu